Tag Archives: Tom Fife

A few days ago, loyal FOTM reader and commenter Jan Neeley wrote a comment that is, at once, intriguing and alarming:

In 2011…I found a video which was about 1-2 hours long and Henry Kissinger was talking to a man name unknown – Kissinger said to this man “we are grooming a young man to be president one day his name is Barack Obama”. This was said during the 1980 convention…. My mouth fell wide open. This would have made Obie about 19-20 years old. Kissinger was wearing a mustard yellow v neck sweater with shirt and tie. Common dress for the 1980’s. I saved the video to my youtube and I saved it as well to my videos on my computer. It is gone. No where to be found. Everything is planned. It is all evil….

I scoured the Internet for the Kissinger video referred to by Jan Neeley, but to no avail. The only real link that popped up was to Neeley’s comment on FOTM.

But it must be said that Neeley’s comment is consistent with what U.S. physicist Tom Fife said.

Tom Fife is an American businessman and physicist. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Fife, then a U.S. government contractor, wrote an essay claiming that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

The Russian woman also said that Barack is himself “a Soviet,” that is, a communist. She also said Barack was from Hawaii, educated in “Ivy League” schools, had been to New York, and was presently in Chicago.

Three years after Fife’s encounter with the woman in Moscow, in 1995, Barack Obama was chosen by Alice Palmer to succeed her in the Illinois State Senate. Palmer was an admirer of the Soviet Union and had attended the 27th Communist Party Congress in the Soviet Union. Palmer announced that Obama was her chosen successor in the Chicago home of Bill Ayer, a self-described communist and former terrorist of the Marxist Weather Underground.

Neeley’s comment is also consistent with what Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan saidon March 20, 2010 at a black conference in Chicago.

Referring to “our brother” Barack Hussein Obama, Farrakhan questioned how a “junior senator” who hadn’t gotten his “foot on the ground” could have the audacity to think he could be President. Farrakhan then declared that Obama “was selected before he was elected” by certain “kingmakers” who were “political scheming” “in back rooms,” and that Obama’s early primary victory in Iowa was “financed largely by Goldman Sachs.”

Although I couldn’t find the 1980 video of Kissinger referenced by Jan Neeley, I did find a video uploaded to YouTube on Jan. 6, 2009 — 14 days before Barack Obama was inaugurated President. The video is a CNBC interview with Kissinger on the floor of Wall Street.

Beginning at the 2:01 mark, the female reporter asked Kissinger if Gaza or another place would be the country or conflict or place that would define the [incoming] Obama administration. Kissinger replied with a very telling comment:

“The [Obama] administration is coming in at the moment when there is a lot of upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously…. So we can’t really say that there is one conflict that is the most important one. But he [Obama] can give due impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when really a New World Order can be created.It’s a great opportunity. It is in fact a crisis.”

The male reporter then asks: “Are you confident about the people whom president-elect Obama has chosen to surround him because he does not have a great deal of experience.”

Kissinger replies: “He has appointed an extraordinarily able group in both the international and financial field.”

Of course, Kissinger proved to be very mistaken in that last observation, as Obama has made a shamble of U.S. foreign policy and the economy and of everything.

Henry Kissinger was National Security Advisor (1969-1975), then concurrently Secretary of State (1973-1977) in the Nixon and Ford administrations, after which he ran his lucrative international consulting firm, Kissinger Associates. Kissinger is a known member of all the secretive elitist groups, including the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Institute, and the occultic owl-god worshiping Bohemian Club. In 2008, Kissinger donated $20,000 to the Bilderberg to fund the group’s annual meeting. (See “Powerful Bilderberg Group’s Tax Returns”

Then Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger is quoted in the bestseller exposé of the U.S. betrayal of American POWs in Vietnam, Kiss the Boys Goodbye, as saying, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

After provoking a new Cold War with Moscow — imposing economic sanctions on Russia over Ukraine, specifically Crimea — the U.S. is retreating from Europe with the closure of 15 military bases.

At a minimum, Obama’s foreign policy is a mess of confusion and mixed messages. At a maximum, he’s doing this by design.

Remember his whispered words to then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea, March 26, 2012? Not realizing his words would be picked up by live microphones, Obama signaled to Medvedev that — wink, wink, nudge, nudge — he’ll be much freer to act as he pleases after he’s won reelection: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility” to deal with missile defense by tearing down America’s missile shield. Then he asked for Russia’s patience — for more “space” and “time.”

Adam Kredo reports for The Washington Free Beacon, Jan. 9, 2015, that the U.S. military is set to shutter 15 sites across Europe and reduce the number of active personnel stationed in these areas as the result of a wide-ranging restructuring that aims to consolidate some operations on the continent, according to Derek Chollet, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

The European restructuring is the culmination of a two-year consolidation plan known as the European Infrastructure Consolidation (EIC) that is reminiscent of a previous decade-long realignment following the Cold War.

The following changes will take effect in the coming years:

15 sites in all will be returned by the United States to their host nations.

“Approximately 1,200 U.S. military and civilian support positions will be eliminated, and about 6,000 more U.S. personnel will be relocated within Europe,” said John Conger, the acting…

In Amerika today, there is no more potent political card to wield than the race card.

Being a racist is worse than being a pedophile or a serial killer. And accusing your opponent of racism is the penultimate way to shut people up because how does one defend oneself? It is as futile as defending oneself against the loaded accusation, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Given that, the smart move for the Democratic Party is to field a black candidate for president and make sure he wins.

In 2008, the Demonrats had their dream candidate — the half-black Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama. Recall that in 2010, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan made the cryptic remark that “Obama was selected before he was elected.” Recall also physicist Tom Fife‘s fascinating account that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Every day since the election and reelection of Obama, the Democrats and the Left have wielded the race card against his critics and opponents. The latest opportunist is that elite of all elites, 77-year-old Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), the great grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller.

On May 21, 2014, near the end of a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, committee chair Rockefeller said opposition to Obamacare, aka the most unAffordable Care Act, stems from members of the GOP thinking Barack Obama is “the wrong color.”

Objecting to what he saw as GOP obstructionism, Rockefeller said he thought it was “very important to take a long view at what’s going on. I’ll be able to dig up some emails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn’t look good – especially from people who made up their mind that they don’t want it to work because they don’t like the president. Maybe he’s of the wrong color, something of that sort. I’ve seen a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It’s not something you’re meant to talk about in public but it’s something I’m talking about in public because that is very true.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) was the only committee member who objected to Rockefeller descent to playing the race card.

Johnson said to Rockefeller: “I would say it was offensive, seeing as how I’m the only one in the room here really talking about opposition, that you would play the race card, that you would say opposition to Obamacare necessarily must stream from … inherent racism. Very offensive. So no, I didn’t object to this because of the race of the president. I objected to this because it is an assault on our freedom. I found it very offensive that you’d basically imply that I’m a racist because I opposed this health care law. That is outrageous! Mr. Chairman … I found it very offensive that you would basically imply that I’m a racist because I opposed this law. Please don’t assume. Don’t make implications of what I’m thinking and what I would support. You have no idea.”

To which Johnson replied, “No, senator. God help you for implying I’m a racist!”

In 2010, according to The Hill, Jay Rockefeller ranked 4thamong the 10 richest members of Congress with an estimated wealth of 84 million. Having been senator for 30 years since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, Rockefeller will retire and not seek reelection.

It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.

Are you ready for this?

Here we go….

There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post linkscolored dark green.

But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.

Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District JudgeDickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, allof which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across Americathat has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).

Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:

1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.

2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.

UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):

5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his acount, someonein the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click herefor his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud”. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.

Just so you know: It makes no monetary difference to us how many people read this post. Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) is an ad-free blog. We don’t make even a penny in revenue because we deliberately don’t have ads. In fact, I paid WordPress a $99 annual fee so WordPress can’t insert ads on FOTM either. All of our writers work our butts off, for no pay, as a labor of love for our country.

I had read this first person account by Tom Fife when the essay was first published during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a physicist and U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

I thought Fife’s account curious at the time, but did not publicize it because it was anecdotal hearsay evidence. But it now takes on greater credibility in light of recent events:

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T. M.

V. was a level-headed scientists while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause — a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. and T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edige — one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottome line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it.”

The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly — as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irrestible to America.”

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that Communists were going this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was just trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for “Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African’,” she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.